While I agree with some of things he does (e.g. powering TV by stationary bike, making those in jail work, making them live in tents etc), his antics for attention are what make people get upset at him. But, at the end of the day, he is an elected official and the people vote for him. I would probably vote for him, just so I wouldn't have to pay to "upgrade" the prison.

_________________Bichon Frise

"If you only have 1 year to live, move to Penn...as it will seem like an eternity."

avocado wrote:

Good to see you back, I was starting to miss your incisive commentary!

DH.... I believe it was in Utah that a company was offering the concealed carry class and training free to teachers. Then once you got your concealed carry license all you had to do was have your school adminstrators approve you to be able to carry.

_________________I can not dwell over that to which I have no control...

I'm looking for ideas as well, and so far the (concealed) arming of teachers/administrator (that volunteer, of course) is the most effective idea I've heard so far. It has the advantage of being relatively low cost (training and perhaps covering equipment costs, versus hiring full-time guards or reimbursing the police department), the teachers/admins know their school layout and people that should or shouldn't be there better than anyone, and because they are carrying concealed (and there's presumably more than one of them), there's no one wearing a uniform that says "shoot me first" to any prospective murderer. Tactically, some teachers might hole up with their students in locked-down classrooms, others (or administrators) might go towards the sounds of gunfire. But more significantly, they'd turn schools from soft targets to hard ones in the mind of a prospective murderer - certainly no "outsiders" would have to know if there were no teachers/administrators in any particular school actually armed under the program or not. The question of mentally ill teachers is a relatively easy one - we already try hard (I assume) to make sure our children are not being taught by the mentally ill, but in any case, what is the difference between someone mentally ill carrying a firearm, or someone mentally ill needing to go out to their car to get a firearm?

Again, I don't oppose or support the idea. But almost everything you said here dismisses as insignificant some rather enormous issues.

Any training of teachers/administrators would be an additional cost for schools. Who pays for that? In this country schools are under a full frontal attack from legislators to cut their funding. Maintenance training for firearms handling for officials that sometime carry incidental to their job (not LEOs but bailiffs, game wardens, and what not) is somewhere around 80 hours a year. That does not include initial training and retraining on tactics etc. (To be effective a teacher would have to know what tactics the police will be using so that they don't become a problem during a response.) That 80 hours is an enormous expense that someone has to pay for.

Teachers don't necessarily know who should and shouldn't be there. But even if they did, many of the recent situations have involved people who "belonged" where they committed their crimes.

"There's no one wearing a uniform that says shoot me first?" Um, being the only adult in the room combined with the knowledge that any teacher may be armed sends that very message!

As for holing up in a classroom behind a locked door. You should inform yourself about this. I am personally aware of a few schools where the ability of teachers to lock the doors has been taken away recently because a) it cost money to deal with lockouts, and b) the police recommend it so that they don't have to deal with locked doors during any response. I find the second reason particularly stupid. But the point remains, something as simple as that can be quite expensive!

The "program" you suggest sounds similar to what we have for air security and teachers would be like air marshals. It costs billions of dollars and relies on extensive and invasive individual screening of every person. And few people are convinced it is actually effective.

Again, I don't disagree with you and I don't even think you are wrong. I just think that what you suggest is enormously expensive and full of complications that make it unworkable.

Okay, in order:Budget expenses: there have already been announcements (Utah, Texas, I think Ohio) about places offering training classes to educators for free. And, it is my suspicion that many educators seeking district permission to concealed-carry on school grounds would already have their own firearm, holster, and adequate competence. But that aside, it is still cheaper than the "hire a guard/get a police officer" option, and IMHO more effective.

Teacher familiarity: I'd think that, all other things being equal, a person knowing the environment and being familiar with the usual personnel would be more effective in armed defense than someone who was not.

"Shoot me first" uniform: Think tactically. If you know the school has an armed guard and you want to shoot the place up, you wait in a car or something till you spot them, or generally hunt them down, and since you may have the advantage of surprise, you might be able to shoot them and then carry on reasonably sure that your targets are now defenseless. If you know teachers/admins can carry concealed, then you have to deal with every adult as if they're armed, and that's going to disrupt your carnage plans (and very possibly deter you from choosing a school target at all).

Locked doors: I haven't been in a (civilian) school since high school. I'm going by reports from Newtown and VA Tech where teachers locked or barricaded a door and they and their students hid behind it. I understand your point about stupid things being expensive (or stupidity as a result of expenses) but I would not withdraw a possible solution just because a few stupid policies may counteract the net benefit. I'm also still not clear on why lockable doors are expensive.

The "program" I'm talking about is a lot closer to the one allowing armed pilots than it is to Air Marshals, because (like teachers) the pilots are supposed to be there anyway. Having armed guards or a police presence at schools would be more akin to the Air Marshal program. And note, I'm not talking about general air security of the TSA sort - in fact, that's exactly what I'm arguing against, in that we cannot make all the schools in the US actual evil-gun-free zones like we've theoretically done with commercial aircraft.

Now, yes, "inside jobs" are likely to know which teachers and administrators specifically are armed, but given that it is a common characteristic of these mass murderers that they tend to crumble at the first sign of armed resistance, and avoid harder targets in the first place, it may deter them anyway, and isn't that what we want?

I've still heard no other approaches that would be more effective or less expensive.

While I agree with some of things he does (e.g. powering TV by stationary bike, making those in jail work, making them live in tents etc), his antics for attention are what make people get upset at him. But, at the end of the day, he is an elected official and the people vote for him. I would probably vote for him, just so I wouldn't have to pay to "upgrade" the prison.

Well, I actually don't have a problem with powering TVs from stationary bikes or making male inmates wear pink panties and slippers. But forcing inmates to work is slavery and was outlawed decades ago in most situations. His rounding up undocumented aliens is racial profiling. He has done plenty of other things that are criminal acts. A few federal agencies are taking him on but unfortunately none have gone far enough. The guy is seriously corrupt.

I guess I'd be more concerned if he were the worst politician we have in Arizona.

While I agree with some of things he does (e.g. powering TV by stationary bike, making those in jail work, making them live in tents etc), his antics for attention are what make people get upset at him. But, at the end of the day, he is an elected official and the people vote for him. I would probably vote for him, just so I wouldn't have to pay to "upgrade" the prison.

Well, I actually don't have a problem with powering TVs from stationary bikes or making male inmates wear pink panties and slippers. But forcing inmates to work is slavery and was outlawed decades ago in most situations. His rounding up undocumented aliens is racial profiling. He has done plenty of other things that are criminal acts. A few federal agencies are taking him on but unfortunately none have gone far enough. The guy is seriously corrupt.

I guess I'd be more concerned if he were the worst politician we have in Arizona.

So you'd rather inmates have a cushy ride instead of making prison a place no one wants to go. That is exactly the feds thinking... and also why there is so many repeat offenders. It's like summer camp for criminals. Forcing inmates to work isn't slavery... it's making them pay their way while inside. Do you think it's free to feed, house, and provide medical care to these inmates? Plus if it shames them that their hommies see them out on a road ditch picking up trash, then maybe... just maybe they will change their lifestyle so they don't have to do it again.

His rounding up undocumented aliens is NOT racial profiling... it's doing what the federal border patrol should be doing but they aren't. He is trying to staunch the flow of illegals into his county and ultimately into this country.

_________________I can not dwell over that to which I have no control...

Okay, in order:Budget expenses: there have already been announcements (Utah, Texas, I think Ohio) about places offering training classes to educators for free. And, it is my suspicion that many educators seeking district permission to concealed-carry on school grounds would already have their own firearm, holster, and adequate competence. But that aside, it is still cheaper than the "hire a guard/get a police officer" option, and IMHO more effective.

Any school that went along with allowing teachers to carry weapons would have an obligation under a whole host of laws to provide substantial training every year. Realize that OSHA rules alone would expose administrators to personal liability if a teacher misused a firearm or if there were an accident due to poor training. In many cases the law already requires annual continuing education for concealed carry. Teachers would need to be paid for that if required for their job. If they did it voluntarily as a "service" to the school there is a good chance they would have to be paid extra under existing laws and court decisions. Again, all that can be changed but there would be substantial debate and opposition.

I work at a university and occasionally have to deal with dangerous substances and equipment. The amount of training I have to go through every year just because my university complies minimally with the law is substantial, more than 4 weeks! This is not all the same every year either. It was a full 6 weeks last year when I included all the day long reviews, updates, seminars, and so forth for everything from driving a high capacity vehicle to properly storing, handling biological materials, radioactive substances, and so forth.

iDude wrote:

I've still heard no other approaches that would be more effective or less expensive.

Nor have I. But I think it is telling that you equated your proposal to pilots carrying weapons. There was a great deal of opposition to that as well! I don't know what the solution is but I don't think you'll see armed teachers in the near future. Texas and Utah will make noise about it but in the end I don't think it will happen in a widespread sense.

(Slightly off topic but I recalled the other day that when I was in high school I sometimes took a gun to school if I was going hunting with friends after school. It was not against the rules at all. The only restrictions were that you had to keep it unloaded and had to keep it in your locker. Times have sure changed.)

Okay, in order:Budget expenses: there have already been announcements (Utah, Texas, I think Ohio) about places offering training classes to educators for free. And, it is my suspicion that many educators seeking district permission to concealed-carry on school grounds would already have their own firearm, holster, and adequate competence. But that aside, it is still cheaper than the "hire a guard/get a police officer" option, and IMHO more effective.

Any school that went along with allowing teachers to carry weapons would have an obligation under a whole host of laws to provide substantial training every year. Realize that OSHA rules alone would expose administrators to personal liability if a teacher misused a firearm or if there were an accident due to poor training. In many cases the law already requires annual continuing education for concealed carry. Teachers would need to be paid for that if required for their job. If they did it voluntarily as a "service" to the school there is a good chance they would have to be paid extra under existing laws and court decisions. Again, all that can be changed but there would be substantial debate and opposition.

I work at a university and occasionally have to deal with dangerous substances and equipment. The amount of training I have to go through every year just because my university complies minimally with the law is substantial, more than 4 weeks! This is not all the same every year either. It was a full 6 weeks last year when I included all the day long reviews, updates, seminars, and so forth for everything from driving a high capacity vehicle to properly storing, handling biological materials, radioactive substances, and so forth.

So, let's ask Utah's schools how they're bearing the administrative burden, since they've been doing it for twelve years.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/12/27/us/utah-teachers-weapons/index.html

DoingHomework wrote:

iDude wrote:

I've still heard no other approaches that would be more effective or less expensive.

Nor have I. But I think it is telling that you equated your proposal to pilots carrying weapons. There was a great deal of opposition to that as well! I don't know what the solution is but I don't think you'll see armed teachers in the near future. Texas and Utah will make noise about it but in the end I don't think it will happen in a widespread sense.

(Slightly off topic but I recalled the other day that when I was in high school I sometimes took a gun to school if I was going hunting with friends after school. It was not against the rules at all. The only restrictions were that you had to keep it unloaded and had to keep it in your locker. Times have sure changed.)

There will always be "a great deal of opposition" to allowing more guns anywhere, but that's generally from people who ignore (and the people watch the news/opinion shows of people who ignore) that the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban was ineffective, that ignore the 100K annual legitimate defensive uses of guns, that think that once a law is passed banning guns that the country's murder rate will fall to Vermont's levels without realizing that in Vermont they've been able to carry concealed with no permit required for decades. I don't factor in that kind of opposition, because #1 it cannot be reasoned with, and #2 what is their recourse if the law is passed, civil disobedience? Boycotts of schools? Meh.

I guess my main point is that there are no easy solutions. I have always been opposed to most gun control measures because I didn't think they would do any good. Bad people are going to find a way to do bad things regardless of what the laws are.

But I think the pendulum is swinging for me and many others like me. The simple fact is that if the guy in Sandy Hook had simply had to stop to reload there likely would have been far fewer kids killed. Many states already limit magazine capacity for hunting to just a few rounds. I think the days of being able to posses magazine with capacity over, say 10 rounds, are limited. I also think you are going to see owner accountability and liability laws. In others words, if you sell a gun or ammo to a whacko you have some liability for their crimes. We already have this sort of thing for alcohol, explosives, and similar dangerous things so that would not be a big change and could be don't behind the scenes.

I also thing this whole line of argument that gun ownership helps keep the government in check or protect us from a tyranical government is a really stupid line of reasoning because of the implications it leads to.

The way things are now, I don't think anything will happen that should worry any sane gun owner.

I also thing this whole line of argument that gun ownership helps keep the government in check or protect us from a tyranical government is a really stupid line of reasoning because of the implications it leads to.

The way things are now, I don't think anything will happen that should worry any sane gun owner.

Then why don't you give up your guns if you trust the govt that much. Right now the ONLY thing from keeping this country into turning into a dictatorship is the fact that the majority of the Americans are armed and if they all decided to rise up they could take back a corrupt govt. The numbers alone prove this. Last month alone TN had almost 92,000 background checks and you cant hardly find any ammo right now. Everyone is even sold out of .22LR

Point being... the only thing that is keeping our govt in check is the fact they know they can loose. Yes our military has better weapons than we do, but chances of our guys being willing to use missiles against Americans are slim.

This is another reason they want our Battle Rifles. They want to cripple us so we could never take back a corrupt govt. It's kinda one sided going up against M16s when all you have is a bolt action rifle that holds 3 rounds.

Look at everything our politicians do... it's not for the good of the American People... it's to stay in power. That's why they wont actually pass a term limit for congress and they are trying to get the term limit for president repealed.

You can call me a wacko or nut job if you want.... but I'll trust the American population being heavily armed over the politicians any day. I will make this prediction... considering the number of people snagging up guns and ammo this last month. If the commie in charge wants to force a ban on guns, there very well could be another American Revolution. Folks aren't buying guns and ammo just to turn them over or register them.

_________________I can not dwell over that to which I have no control...

Wow. I'm not calling you a whacko or nut job or anything else N2. But as LEO doesn't it worry you just a little bit that there are people who would actually shoot you just because you represent the government? You have a job to do and you probably do it professionally whether you agree with what you are told to do or not. I'm sure there are things you would refuse to do as we all would. But I would think it would be horrifying to you to imagine a time when some whacko or a group of them decided the government had overstepped the bounds and decided to rise up against it. You could be on the front lines and maybe not on the side you might choose.

We have a wonderful way to challenge the government in this country. It's called the ballot box. Every two years we all get to choose a new set of leaders. There is no need for any kind of uprising, armed or otherwise. We might not always like those elected. I know I sure don't. But I do accept that the majority of my fellow citizens voted for whoever got elected. And I know that we have a democratic process for choosing leaders.

That's why I think the whole argument that people need to have guns to protect themselves from the government is so absurd. It's downright scary. People using that argument are implicitly using the strength of our constitution to justify outrageous behavior. The constitution, any constitution, is written to delineate the orderly function of a government and to allocate rights and responsibilities in the operation of government.

Far from incorporating any check on the government based on people rising up in arms against it, our constitution specifically makes insurrection against the government treason. It is the only crime defined in the constitution. There simply is no right to challenge the government by force even if it violates the constitution. So any argument that the framers somehow built in the right to bear arms as a check on the government is ridiculous.

I guess my main point is that there are no easy solutions. I have always been opposed to most gun control measures because I didn't think they would do any good. Bad people are going to find a way to do bad things regardless of what the laws are.

Well on that, we agree.

DoingHomework wrote:

But I think the pendulum is swinging for me and many others like me. The simple fact is that if the guy in Sandy Hook had simply had to stop to reload there likely would have been far fewer kids killed.

I vehemently disagree with this.

DoingHomework wrote:

Many states already limit magazine capacity for hunting to just a few rounds.

There are lots of restrictions on hunting state-by-state, and it's of little concern because hunting is not a constitutionally protected activity.

DoingHomework wrote:

I think the days of being able to posses magazine with capacity over, say 10 rounds, are limited.

Here, we disagree. Even during the tenure of the old federal Assault Weapon Ban, it was easy to come by 11+ capacity magazines. I can't think of any historical precedent for requiring a quarter of a country's population to turn in a newly-restricted (and non-serial-numbered) device. And you're doing so to inconvenience a handful of murderers that collectively form a statistical anomaly.

DoingHomework wrote:

I also think you are going to see owner accountability and liability laws. In others words, if you sell a gun or ammo to a whacko you have some liability for their crimes. We already have this sort of thing for alcohol, explosives, and similar dangerous things so that would not be a big change and could be don't behind the scenes.

Do you know how many gun buyers lied on their background check form last year? Of those, do you know how many were actually prosecuted for doing so? How bout we raise that ratio from one-in-a-hundred to something that provides more of a deterrent?

DoingHomework wrote:

I also thing this whole line of argument that gun ownership helps keep the government in check or protect us from a tyranical government is a really stupid line of reasoning because of the implications it leads to.

The way things are now, I don't think anything will happen that should worry any sane gun owner.

I disagree with that, too. But frankly my biggest concern is establishing universal background checks (closing the so-called "gun show loophole"), because that will create an invitation for the government to start preserving the transaction records (they never like to delete data), and then transition to universal gun registration. Short of that, if they want to (once again) pursue an Assault Weapons ban and restrict magazine capacity, I'll grab some popcorn and watch the fight - and I will not be turning in my own magazines or whatever they end up defining as an Assault Weapon, no matter what.

Wow. I'm not calling you a whacko or nut job or anything else N2. But as LEO doesn't it worry you just a little bit that there are people who would actually shoot you just because you represent the government? You have a job to do and you probably do it professionally whether you agree with what you are told to do or not. I'm sure there are things you would refuse to do as we all would. But I would think it would be horrifying to you to imagine a time when some whacko or a group of them decided the government had overstepped the bounds and decided to rise up against it. You could be on the front lines and maybe not on the side you might choose.

I go to work every day knowing that my life is on the line. I worry more about when we cant defend ourselves.... whether it's against a common criminal or tyranny (sp?). If this country decided it was in it's best interest to kick out a corrupt govt then my choice is simple. I quit. Once it's over then I'll find work elsewhere.

Quote:

We have a wonderful way to challenge the government in this country. It's called the ballot box. Every two years we all get to choose a new set of leaders. There is no need for any kind of uprising, armed or otherwise. We might not always like those elected. I know I sure don't. But I do accept that the majority of my fellow citizens voted for whoever got elected. And I know that we have a democratic process for choosing leaders.

The ballot box only works when the people pull their heads out of their collective One thing I have noticed is unless you fit into one of the two camps... you're not going to have a chance because those two camps will make sure there is no other competition. Look at the last elections... an independent had to sue to try and get in the debates and he still couldn't get in. Our current political system is a joke. It doesn't matter if your a D or R... its the same coin.. just a different side. The only way we have a chance of changing things for the better is when regular citizens take office and kick out the "elite". If you're not rich you don't have a chance in hell of winning a spot in congress. Used to be it was governed by the people for the people. Now it's governed by the rich for the rich.

Quote:

That's why I think the whole argument that people need to have guns to protect themselves from the government is so absurd. It's downright scary. People using that argument are implicitly using the strength of our constitution to justify outrageous behavior. The constitution, any constitution, is written to delineate the orderly function of a government and to allocate rights and responsibilities in the operation of government.

Far from incorporating any check on the government based on people rising up in arms against it, our constitution specifically makes insurrection against the government treason. It is the only crime defined in the constitution. There simply is no right to challenge the government by force even if it violates the constitution. So any argument that the framers somehow built in the right to bear arms as a check on the government is ridiculous.

If you fail to learn from history... you're doomed to repeat it.

There are many countries that are run by tyrants and they cant do anything about it because they don't have the hardware to stand up and fight for themselves. You may think it cant happen here in America, but I think you're wrong. Our govt has already proven they will do whatever it takes to stay in power... and that even includes experimenting with chemical weapons on the general population in St. Louis. The Army admited this after a FOI request.

_________________I can not dwell over that to which I have no control...

I guess my main point is that there are no easy solutions. I have always been opposed to most gun control measures because I didn't think they would do any good. Bad people are going to find a way to do bad things regardless of what the laws are.

Well on that, we agree.

Your right... it someone wants to kill someone they will find a way.

Quote:

DoingHomework wrote:

But I think the pendulum is swinging for me and many others like me. The simple fact is that if the guy in Sandy Hook had simply had to stop to reload there likely would have been far fewer kids killed.

I vehemently disagree with this.

Me too.... The simple fact is... if we didn't have these "Gun Free Zones" then he wouldn't have had time to reload. The only way to stop a criminal with a gun is a citizen with a gun. The cops will just get there to clean up the mess. Most cases they are several minutes away and by then it's all over with. Having a gun free zone just gives a killer intent on doing harm free reign. People need to get over their irrational fear of guns. A gun could save your life one day... or the life of your child.

Quote:

DoingHomework wrote:

I think the days of being able to posses magazine with capacity over, say 10 rounds, are limited.

Here, we disagree. Even during the tenure of the old federal Assault Weapon Ban, it was easy to come by 11+ capacity magazines. I can't think of any historical precedent for requiring a quarter of a country's population to turn in a newly-restricted (and non-serial-numbered) device. And you're doing so to inconvenience a handful of murderers that collectively form a statistical anomaly.

And there are several folks that will refuse to turn them in. That's why you cant find any "standard capacity" mags for the AR right now. They have been all bought up. And yes... I said standard capacity. A 30 round mag is not a high capacity mag. It's what comes standard with an AR. You want high capacity.... look at the 100 round drums.

Quote:

DoingHomework wrote:

I also think you are going to see owner accountability and liability laws. In others words, if you sell a gun or ammo to a whacko you have some liability for their crimes. We already have this sort of thing for alcohol, explosives, and similar dangerous things so that would not be a big change and could be don't behind the scenes.

Do you know how many gun buyers lied on their background check form last year? Of those, do you know how many were actually prosecuted for doing so? How bout we raise that ratio from one-in-a-hundred to something that provides more of a deterrent?

Not only that... but how are you gonna put the blame on me because I sold something. That goes back to what's wrong with this country. No one wants to take accountablility for their own actions. I could sell you a hand grenade but it's not my fault if your too stupid to throw it after you pull the pin. (used as an example... I don't have any grenades). Same goes for someone that commits a crime. I get so sick of folks trying to blame a manufacturer because some idiot did something stupid with their product.

Quote:

DoingHomework wrote:

I also thing this whole line of argument that gun ownership helps keep the government in check or protect us from a tyranical government is a really stupid line of reasoning because of the implications it leads to.

The way things are now, I don't think anything will happen that should worry any sane gun owner.

I disagree with that, too. But frankly my biggest concern is establishing universal background checks (closing the so-called "gun show loophole"), because that will create an invitation for the government to start preserving the transaction records (they never like to delete data), and then transition to universal gun registration. Short of that, if they want to (once again) pursue an Assault Weapons ban and restrict magazine capacity, I'll grab some popcorn and watch the fight - and I will not be turning in my own magazines or whatever they end up defining as an Assault Weapon, no matter what.

The moment you conscent to gun registration you have lost your guns. Now the govt knows exactly where each and every gun is located. All they have to do is come get them whenever they want. Personally... I don't think the loophole should be closed because I have no way of knowing if they are submitting regristration info to the govt when you buy it at a store.

_________________I can not dwell over that to which I have no control...

But I think the pendulum is swinging for me and many others like me. The simple fact is that if the guy in Sandy Hook had simply had to stop to reload there likely would have been far fewer kids killed.

I vehemently disagree with this.

What do you disagree with? I can assure you that the pendulum is swinging for me! That is is do easy for these crazies we've seen kill a bunch of people over the last 2 years or so has convinced me that we need to do something and I know quite a few people who feel the same way. And we're not talking about a bunch of commie liberals here like you might think I am. Some of these friends proudly call themselves gun nuts and are very active hunters and shooters.

DoingHomework wrote:

I think the days of being able to posses magazine with capacity over, say 10 rounds, are limited.

Here, we disagree. Even during the tenure of the old federal Assault Weapon Ban, it was easy to come by 11+ capacity magazines. I can't think of any historical precedent for requiring a quarter of a country's population to turn in a newly-restricted (and non-serial-numbered) device. And you're doing so to inconvenience a handful of murderers that collectively form a statistical anomaly.

DoingHomework wrote:

Many states already limit magazine capacity for hunting to just a few rounds.

iDude wrote:

There are lots of restrictions on hunting state-by-state, and it's of little concern because hunting is not a constitutionally protected activity.

True. And I know we are not talking about hunting here. But if we go down the list of why people should be allowed to have guns at all the list is pretty short - self defense, hunting, recreational shooting - and none of those require high capacity magazines. Even the Heller decision, which I think was extreme and far reaching, did say that some restrictions are reasonable.

Hunting uses are already restricted. I'm not sure that any court is going to deem target shooting to warrant extreme protection. It is only self defense that seems to be protected. Good luck to anyone who actually needs 30 rounds in a self defense situation!

You're right that there are a lot of magazines out there. But I don't think that a "taking" in the form of an outright ban including on existing items would be considered enough of a "taking" to violate the constitutional prohibition on that. For one thing the lack of serialization makes it more likely that a confiscation could be constitutional because it means they are somewhat of a commodity and have only limited value. Heck, as you probably know, you can buy AK47 clips for little more than their scrap metal value today!

iDude wrote:

DoingHomework wrote:

I also think you are going to see owner accountability and liability laws. In others words, if you sell a gun or ammo to a whacko you have some liability for their crimes. We already have this sort of thing for alcohol, explosives, and similar dangerous things so that would not be a big change and could be don't behind the scenes.

Do you know how many gun buyers lied on their background check form last year? Of those, do you know how many were actually prosecuted for doing so? How bout we raise that ratio from one-in-a-hundred to something that provides more of a deterrent?

That's exactly why I think it will happen. If I have by taxes prepared, take out a mortgage, or even buy a stock, the preparer, broker, or loan officer has some liability if I lie. There are safe harbors and all that but reckless brokers, tax preparers, and mortgage guys do go to prison occasionally. Yet a Walmart clerk can sell a whacko a gun with impunity. If I want to buy Sudafed I have to register my purchase, speak with a licensed pharmacist who assesses my motivations and puts her license and career on the line for me. Yet a dealer can sell me a gun with not accountability beyond giving me a form to fill out and making a phone call for an instant check.

iDude wrote:

I disagree with that, too. But frankly my biggest concern is establishing universal background checks (closing the so-called "gun show loophole"), because that will create an invitation for the government to start preserving the transaction records (they never like to delete data), and then transition to universal gun registration. Short of that, if they want to (once again) pursue an Assault Weapons ban and restrict magazine capacity, I'll grab some popcorn and watch the fight - and I will not be turning in my own magazines or whatever they end up defining as an Assault Weapon, no matter what.

But it will happen, possibly with no actual change in the law. The dealers that sold the guns to these whackos will get sued. They'll need to prove they complied with the law with records. They will be seen as having massive liability exposure and won't be able to get business credit, insurance, etc. It's already happening. Communities that want to restrict gun shows get sued but so they just require very expensive insurance.

Anyway, that's my prediction, not necessarily something I advocate. As I've said, I am not anti gun. I don't think guns are dangerous when treated properly. But I don't think they are being treated properly when the likes of Jared Laughner, James Holmes, and the Sandy Hook kid, all of who were mentally ill or had other issues, can get their hands on guns as easily as they do.

It's really hard to argue that restrictions would have a serious impact on the other lawful uses of guns - hunting, self defense, or target shooting. A wait, registration, magazine capacity restrictions, and so forth would at best be a minor inconvenience.

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Exabot [Bot], Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum